Impact of Government’s proposed new Permitted Development Right

Nicky Gavron: In answer to my question 2020/4485 you expressed concern that the Government’s new Use Class E, that amalgamates shops, offices, surgeries, nurseries, gyms and light industry into a single use class, would be detrimental to the high street. Are you also concerned that further government proposed changes to permitted development rights, allowing any of these uses to become residential, will threaten London’s high streets and town centres even more?

Sadiq Khan: The Government’s latest proposals would allow any shop, restaurant, office, light industrial premises, nursery, medical centre or indoor sports centre to be converted to a residential use. It makes no distinction between different places, whether the space is occupied or not, or the size of the premises. Existing Article 4 directions would have no power to stop the change of use and I have very serious concerns about these proposals. They could result in the eviction of countless high street businesses, disruption to hundreds and thousands of jobs and the closure of nurseries and medical centres.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have all seen how communities have come to rely on their local high streets, as AssemblyMemberShah alluded to in his last question. We know that the recovery must be a green recovery and that new ways of working are beginning to emerge, which will require commercial space to be available to be reused imaginatively. The Government’s proposals would undermine all of this at the worst possible time, encouraging people to use cars more as local shops and childcare disappear, driving up the rents of creative businesses and small enterprises as they seek to invest in future growth, pepper-potting high streets with dead frontages that will encourage no footfall just as local shops and restaurants try to get back on their feet.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you for that answer. I do agree with you how radical this change is. It is one of the most radical changes in planning that we have seen, ever, and you outlined some of it. It means that any building in any use of any size in virtually any part of London could become a block of flats, without going through the planning system. The Government says that its central objective in bringing in its very radical, all-encompassing permitted development right (PDR) is, I quote, “to support housing delivery”. Now how do you think it will support housing delivery, what kind of housing will that be and at what cost to the economy and to London’s need for services and jobs?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, spot on. The last two comments are really important. There is housing and there is housing, and there is also the unintended consequence of this policy relating to our economy and jobs. On the housing front, she will have seen and heard horror stories about some of the homes that have happened from permitted development, poor quality, poor design, not family homes, very little amenity space, if any. My worry is we are going to see an escalation of those sorts of poor-quality homes that do not have any control of the permission process from locally living councillors who know the community.
The other point is that you cannot blame a landowner who sees the opportunity of making a quick buck by flipping a property they own that is used for business to residential because they could make a quick buck doing that. That is why this is a short-sighted, naïve policy from the Government and we are urgently asking it to reconsider because we can see the unintended consequences being really adverse in many parts of our city.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you for that answer. Also, of course, no affordable housing.

Sadiq Khan: There is no requirement at all in relation to family houses, genuinely affordable homes or the sorts of homes a local community needs.

Nicky Gavron: Exactly. The PDR also includes the potential loss of some of our most critical neighbourhood assets like nurseries, crèches, gyms and surgeries. It just goes on, the list, also, of course, the potential loss of or making a huge dent in some of our most famous shopping and commercial districts. You have just been talking to Navin [Shah AM] about the High Streets for All mission, how we are going to recover from coronavirus and how important that mission is. Can you say a bit more about how it is going to undermine that?

Sadiq Khan: Yes.

Nicky Gavron: Also, if I could just fit this in as well because I probably will not get another question in, what protections you might be asking for?

Sadiq Khan: One of the great things that has happened in the last few weeks and months, although it is very difficult to talk about silver linings with such an awful pandemic, is London government working far closer together. We have worked the London government, civil society and others, including the business community, about our nine missions, one of which is around protecting our high streets. The irony is at a time when councils are working closer together with the GLA and others, more than ever before, we are having powers taken away from us by central Government in relation to this policy that you are asking questions about. You have to have a great council, which gets the local community really well, wanting to have a diverse high street. But that opportunity to do so is taken away from them because a landowner, for reasons which you cannot blame them for, wants to make a quick buck by flipping it, which they can now do, without having to pay any attention to local plans, to heritage or to the diversity of a town centre. It makes it much, much harder to have thriving high streets and I am really worried you could have residential developments, which are out of scale to the local community. You will be aware of the huge amount of light industrial buildings used by the creatives, used by small businesses, who do not make huge amounts of money. Their landowners will be threatening them from light industry use to poor quality of residential use at the worst time possible where we need to be coming out of this pandemic with a swift recovery so we can have good growth with wealth and prosperity to create good jobs.

Nicky Gavron: Absolutely. Just on the last bit, the lobbying, and the Planning [and Regeneration] Committee is putting in a response to this where the lobbying would be, “We do not want this to go ahead”. In fact, as you said earlier, all the protections that did exist under PDR are not there anymore, no Article 4s, no sanctions, etc. What will you be lobbying for in terms of protections?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, I mean, councillors have made it quite clear we are working with London councillors about the importance of Article 4. If you think about it, there are two good examples. We have heard recently about Oxford Street, about Debenhams and Topshop leaving their two flagship buildings in Oxford Street. You can see a situation where, in places like that, a landowner - I am not suggesting, by the way, those two landowners are - who wants to make a quick buck, could flip those to residential, which would be out of keeping with what Oxford Street needs. What we should be doing instead is working with the council, with New West End Company and others, to have a place that is a destination so it takes away the ability of Westminster Council, working closely with us, to have Oxford Street as a destination. You can think of other examples across our city where local councillors who know their patch better than Whitehall civil servants, are taking away the ability to do so by having the power to have an Article 4 direction. We are going to work closely, Nicky, with London Councils, work closely with really good businesses across London and residents to try to lobby the Government to change its mind on this policy.

Nicky Gavron: Thank you very much. Thank you.

Reinventing the High Street

Navin Shah: How is the London Recovery Board ‘reinventing the high street’ in Outer London and what actions are being considered, both during the pandemic and beyond to halt the decline of high streets and create self-sufficient neighbourhoods contributing to the local economy and that of London?

Sadiq Khan: Good morning, Deputy Chairman. London’s high streets are the beating heart of our communities and an essential part of our economy. The London Recovery Board’s
High Streets for All mission will support London’s boroughs to plan for, safeguard and deliver a diverse, resilient and thriving mix of high streets and town centre activity within easy reach of all Londoners. It will support local authority-led high street partnerships to work with land interests and businesses to better manage assets and experiment with new uses and support diverse communities in every London borough to revitalise underused high street buildings.
I have already increased the Good Growth Fund by £8.1million to enable its focus on these recovery objectives in March. Alongside London councillors I launched the High Street for All Challenge Fund to support local partnerships and foster experimentation. I also announced my first round of pledges from the
Make London Programme to enable local community and cultural organisations to participate in high street renewal. My London Plan sets a flexible, strategic framework for London’s town centres and high streets to ensure growth is sustainable and promotes the compact city model and deliver good growth.

Navin Shah: Thank you, MrMayor. Do you think that the 12 months’ freeze on business rates, which ends in 2021 tax year, introduced by the Chancellor [of the Exchequer] is adequate to stave off economic disaster or should this period be extended for a further 12 months?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. I welcome the 12-month freeze in business rates. It has got to be extended by at least another year, but businesses need to know now. Businesses are planning now for next year. There is no point at the end of February announcing an extension. They need to announce it now because I worry businesses who are currently temporarily closed may become permanent closures because there is no extension, an extension on business rates relief to businesses but also VAT for those businesses in those sectors, who need support. The third thing the Government needs to do is provide targeted support for those really adversely affected by the pandemic and by the lockdown.

Navin Shah: Thank you. MrMayor, I have an interesting couple of statistics here. One is that in London we currently have about 1,200 high streets and within London itself we have over 128,000 businesses, which account for 23% of London’s total business. Given the contribution they make to London’s economy, should the Chancellor use near £2billion of business rates relief returned by supermarkets to help those struggling businesses impacted by the pandemic?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, it is good he is able to switch spending. I want to thank the supermarkets for returning the relief given to them, a really good example of corporate responsibility. The Chancellor [of the Exchequer] has monies he was not planning to have and he should use those monies to really help those businesses struggling. You will be aware - and you mentioned some numbers - actually, one of the joys of living in the suburbs is our high streets and our town centres and quality of life and we are in danger of losing those. That is why it is so important the Government thinks about the financial benefits of investment but also the benefits to our way of life by investing in our town centres and high streets.

Navin Shah: Interestingly, MrMayor, you have mentioned quality of life, an associated contribution from high streets. Also, you mentioned earlier on the Good Growth Fund. Do you think that the London Plan’s Good Growth approach itself is fit for purpose? Or do you think that it needs alterations to regenerate high streets, given particularly what we will be facing come the recovery proper?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, that is a really good point you raise. I discussed this with the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Jules Pipe [CBE], and we looked into this. We think the London Plan, once it is finally approved by the Government - which has had it for more than a year now - is sufficiently adept and agile to adopt the changes brought about by COVID. You will be pleased to know that one of the nine recovery missions, as you said in your question, is around the high street. The good news is we are now able to leverage in also local councils’ local plans but also the plans of other parts of the London family as well. If there is a case in due course for us to amend the London Plan, we can issue what is called Supplementary Planning Guidance. There is no need to do so at the moment because we think the London Plan is sufficiently agile and flexible and forward-thinking to address some of the concerns that you otherwise would have.

Navin Shah: Thank you, MrMayor. I am done, thank you.

Support for the 3 million excluded

Joanne McCartney: What actions have you taken as Mayor to help support those Londoners who are part of the 3 million excluded from current support packages?

Sadiq Khan: I am appalled that, despite the clear evidence that so many are being denied the support they need through the pandemic, many are left in or at risk of severe financial hardship. The Government continues to ignore the millions excluded. This further current national lockdown will make matters even worse. The Government must now listen to what Excluded UK, London’s business groups and I have said. It is not too late for the Government to do the right thing. The Government has not put in place support for the newly self-employed, directors of limited companies, or those who have annual trading profits in excess of £50,000.
July figures show that hundreds of thousands of self-employed people in London could be excluded from the financial help they need. Many of those affected are not well off. They are self-employed freelancers and tradespeople across all sectors of our economy. They will be supporting families with mortgages, rent and other essential costs. We cannot forget or ignore the impact this is having on people’s mental health. People are in real financial despair.
I have been listening to the concerns of the self-employed and I continue to press the Government to fix this. In November [2020], I stood with seven other city region mayors, Excluded UK and self-employed people to call for action. In December, I wrote to the Chancellor to call for targeted financial support to the taxi and private-hire vehicles. Even with limited funds, I continue to provide whatever direct support I can for the
self-employed, including the Pay It Forward platform, back-to-business grants, the Culture at Risk Fund and the Creative Economy Growth Programme. The London Business Hub and my Employment Rights Hub are updated frequently with help and signposting. We are also funding research by the Centre for London to make recommendations on supporting the self-employed.
Now the Government must urgently review the support for the self-employed or we risk more businesses in London, which were thriving until recently, being lost for good.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you for that answer, MrMayor. Many of my constituents in Enfield and Haringey are among those workers who have received no support from the Government. We are now in another lengthy lockdown and by the end of this lockdown that will be almost a year without any support. You are quite right that there is great financial hardship. They feel ignored and let down by this Government. Many of them are freelancers working in the creative industries, which is so important to London’s economy. What should the Government be doing as a priority for these workers?

Sadiq Khan: The Government needs to recognise that hundreds of thousands in London, millions across the country, have fallen through the cracks and have received no assistance, like you say, since last March [2020]. We estimate that over 60% of creative freelancers have lost all work. Equity estimates that 40% of its members have not been able to access support. That is why it is so important that the Government steps in to help these creative people, who contribute hugely towards our economy in good times and through the bad times, or we could lose them forever, not just from these industries but also from London. That is why I am imploring the Chancellor to do right by them in his forthcoming budget, preferably in advance of that, because they cannot wait until March [2021].

Joanne McCartney: Thank you, MrMayor. Will you promise to continue to speak up for these workers? Could you just let me know a little bit more about the help that you have given, as far as you are able, to support those workers who have been excluded from Government support?

Sadiq Khan: Yes, we continue with limited funds to do what we can to help. With, in relative terms, a fraction of the money that Government has, we are doing much more, which just does not seem right, whether it is the Pay It Forward scheme or the Culture at Risk Fund. We have a new Business Hub doing an amazing amount of really good work. The back-to-business financial support we are giving. The grant scheme we are giving. I have recently given out a further £5.5million towards the recovery.
It is really important though that the Government steps in to help out. I had a call yesterday with business leaders and businesspeople and some of their stories are heart-breaking. The further national lockdown has compounded some of the challenges they had faced last year. These last-minute U-turns from the Government mean they cannot even plan for the future, which does not make sense either.

Joanne McCartney: Thank you, MrMayor. Good luck in your lobbying efforts. Thank you, Chair.

The Extraordinary Funding and Financing Agreement for Transport for London

Alison Moore: What does London need to make TfL financially sustainable by 2023?

Sadiq Khan: Before the pandemic, TfL was close to achieving a level of financial sustainability unheard of among transport authorities around the world. COVID has led to the lowest Tube ridership since the 19th century and has decimated TfL’s finances, revealing that a funding model that is solely reliant on fare revenues is not sustainable. 72% of TfL’s operating income comes from passenger revenue, far more than any other major city. London contributes around 23% of the UK’s total gross domestic product (GDP) and in 2018 London contributed £39billion net to the Treasury.
As part of the most recent funding agreement, TfL was required to produce a plan setting out how it could become financially sustainable by 2023/2024. A copy of this report was shared with the Government and the Assembly last week. It provides the starting point for discussions with Government ahead of the current funding agreement expiring in March [2021]. TfL is seeking Government support to drive a green recovery focused on maintaining service levels and decarbonising transport by 2030, while still achieving a level of financial sustainability greater than many other mass transit systems.
TfL has already explained that around £3billion in support will be needed in 2021/2022 to make up for the income lost due to the pandemic. Although future demand remains unclear, London will certainly need support into the long term for investment in the city’s transport infrastructure. The funding model must be revised to ensure TfL can provide the services we need. The £1.6billion annual funding for capital investment that TfL is requesting from 2023 onwards will be used to support London’s recovery from the pandemic by making London’s buses zero-emission, improving the safety and efficiency of our roads, and encouraging active travel.

Alison Moore: Thank you very much, MrMayor. I would like to follow up with a couple of questions. I will start by saying, contrary to the somewhat shouty and inaccurate assertions by AssemblyMemberDevenish, you earlier this morning welcomed a cross-party approach on the issue of VED. Has the Government responded to your proposals to play fair with Londoners by allowing TfL to keep the £500million a year in VED Londoners pay every year?

Sadiq Khan: The discussions have just begun and I do not like giving running commentaries on negotiations. We will be able to see how effective Conservative Members of the Assembly are in relation to the response from the Government. I really welcome KeithPrince’s [AM] offer to work on a cross-party basis persuading the Government to allow London to keep the VED raised in London. We will see now what response the Government has to this cross-party approach from the GLA.

Alison Moore: Thank you very much. I hope they will listen to that. What are the next steps for the independent review? Will you be formally responding to all the suggestions made? If so, what is the timeframe for that to happen?

Sadiq Khan: In due course we will be responding to the independent review. I will just bring up the point that we published both the London Sustainability Plan because we believe in transparency and we published the independent review conducted by experts for no cost at all. The Government, on the other hand, has paid for - using taxpayers’ money - a report done by KPMG and it is locked in a safe somewhere. We cannot get to see it. Yes, we will respond in due course. We are using that as the base source for discussions with the Government over the course of the next few days and weeks.

Alison Moore: That begs a final question from me, then. You mentioned the KPMG review and the Government - as I understand it - has refused to share that KPMG review into TfL finances. How difficult is it to negotiate a funding agreement with the Government when they are guided by a report that you have not seen and therefore cannot respond to or indeed take fully into account in your submission?

Sadiq Khan: It is unheard of. Nobody can give me an example where anybody has worked under these conditions. One of the things I will be doing - let me just say loud and clear - over the next 100 days is letting Londoners know what sort of Government we have. That they would use taxpayers’ money to prepare a report in relation to TfL, which includes commentary on how TfL is doing, but also has ideas going forward, but refuses to share that document with TfL, not only the Mayor who is Chair of TfL, but the Commissioner or any of his staff. The version they give them has large chunks blacked out and redacted. It beggars belief.

Alison Moore: It is really not playing fair. Thank you very much, MrMayor.

TfL station car park developments

Andrew Boff: Do you intend to revise any of TfL’s station car park development schemes?

Sadiq Khan: London has a housing crisis. Quite simply, there are not enough homes. As the AssemblyMember knows, the only way to fix this is to build more genuinely affordable homes.
There is no good reason for TfL to reduce or change its property development programme. TfL is one of the capital’s largest landowners and it must continue to transform its surplus land into the new homes that London desperately needs while also delivering a vital long-term income stream that can be reinvested into the transport network. My job is to make sure these homes are well designed, built in sustainable locations and, most importantly, meet Londoners’ needs.
Since 2017, TfL and its partners have already started building almost 1,500 homes with over 5,500 more having planning approval and planning applications for a further 2,000 have been submitted. Of these homes, 50% will be genuinely affordable. The Government wants us to look creatively at new income streams. In fact, that is a condition of TfL’s emergency funding. This is one of the programmes that is meeting this goal.
Every site in TfL’s portfolio goes through a rigorous feasibility exercise to determine if the local is suitable and to assess what could be delivered. My London Plan sets out the underused brownfield sites such as carparks that should be considered for development.
TfL’s carparks are no longer used in the way they were when first introduced. Public transport then was not as affordable, frequent, safe or accessible as it is today with bus routes and cycling facilities providing alternative ways to reach these stations. At Cockfosters, for example, 96% of people driving to the station are within walking distance of alternative public transport options. We also have an urgent need to tackle inactivity and poor air quality, which we can help to address by encouraging people to travel differently to our stations. Of course, accessibility for all is vital and TfL will retain already provided Blue Badge parking spaces for those who need to park at stations. By transforming underused carparks, TfL is encouraging more sustainable travel while helping to solve London’s housing crisis.

Andrew Boff: As Chair of TfL, what lessons will you learn from the unanimous rejection by the Enfield [Council] Planning Committee of your high-rise planning application to build on the Arnos Grove Station carpark and the cross-party rejection last night by Harrow [Council] Planning Committee of your application at Canons Park?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, as the Member will know, I cannot comment on live applications. They are quasi-judicial. He will be aware that there is a role for the Mayor or Deputy Mayor [for Housing and Residential Development] when there is a conflict to call in an application. I cannot speak on that specific case. I can speak generally if he wants me to do so, but he will appreciate why I cannot speak on those cases.

Andrew Boff: If you have called them in, that is the case. Have you called them in?

Sadiq Khan: As I am speaking, I have not called either of those in.

Andrew Boff: You can talk about them because they are not live. They have been concluded as far as the Planning Committee is concerned. Until you actually call them in, you can talk about them.

Sadiq Khan: No, I cannot, Chair. I am really happy for him to take the same advice I have received. I cannot talk about them and I will not talk about them.

Andrew Boff: You choose not to talk about them and we understand why. Your Arnos Grove application included just 14 family homes out of 162, which is 9%. Overall, your five most recent applications have just over 135 family homes, 12% of the total. Should you be using these schemes as an opportunity to support and create local communities rather than just warehousing people?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am not speaking about that particular application. It is really important that I put that on the record in case somebody is watching this and thinks I have formed a view.
In relation to family houses in general, we are really keen to have more family homes that are affordable to Londoners. Market-value family homes are not affordable to most Londoners. I do not subscribe to the view, for example, that homeless Londoners can afford a £5,000 deposit for a home.
What we are seeking to do is to encourage the Government to give us more financial support for subsidised family homes. At the moment, the funding the Government gives us is more skewed towards shared ownership in relation to home ownership and in relation to smaller units.
The reason why that can be an advantage is when it comes to adult overcrowding in homes. We have heard many examples. One of the reasons for overcrowding in homes is because adult children cannot afford to purchased subsidised smaller units of one or two bedrooms. Having more subsidised one- and two-bedroom homes means they can leave those homes that are overcrowded, which makes those homes less overcrowded.
As and when the Government changes its funding formula so that it is skewed more towards subsidise low-market family homes, of course we would like it to do so if it is possible, but there is no point building family homes that only very few people can afford to buy or that landlords buy to then sublet to people to rent.

Andrew Boff: MrMayor, they are expensive because nobody is building them and you are continuing the trend.
Will your keenness to support family housing at some point be represented in the figures? Since you have been Mayor, the number of family-sized homes has declined drastically.

Sadiq Khan: Let us deal with what the Member clearly does not understand. This is one of the reasons why many of us were not surprised that the Conservatives think homeless people can afford £5,000 deposits. That is how out of touch they are.
The average cost of a family home in London is north of £500,000. He may be able to afford those sorts of family homes, but the vast majority of Londoners cannot. Unless we are able to provide subsidised family homes for‑‑

Andrew Boff: You are talking about the purchase target, MrMayor. Social housing is the same. There are just not the family homes.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberBoff‑‑

Andrew Boff: Thank you, Chair. He is saying the same old stuff and so I will finish now.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I have been asked a question. I am not sure why he is scared of the answer. This is a good example of‑‑

Andrew Boff: No, I am not. No, I do not think so.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberBoff‑‑

Sadiq Khan: -- answers they do not like and they do not want to hear them.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberBoff, look, you are making various comments. Allow the Mayor to respond to the comments that you are making. You may not like them, but please show the courtesy of listening to him.

Andrew Boff: It works like this, Chair. I ask a question. The Mayor should answer the question I ask.

Sadiq Khan: Do not patronise him. Do not patronise him. He is the Chair, do not patronise him.

Navin Shah: Can you stop here, please? AssemblyMemberBoff, stop here, please.

Andrew Boff: All right. Let us not continue the agony, shall we?

Navin Shah: Can you stop here, please? Sorry, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, the Member may try to patronise the Chair but I listen to the directions of the Chair. As you have asked me to respond to the question from the Member, let me respond.
The fact is that the way the formula works from the Government is that it is skewed towards the one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties in the market in London and is also skewed against subsidised family homes.
I have seen, by the way, what the previous Mayor was doing in relation to affordable homes. He had two definitions of an affordable home, one costing £450,000 to buy or one costing 80% of market value to rent. I am not in favour of building luxury penthouse flats for foreigners to invest in, nothing against foreigners. I am in favour of building homes for Londoners. He may not like that but that is what Londoners voted for in 2016. Over the course of the next 100 days, I will be explaining to Londoners why the only way to get more affordable homes for Londoners is by voting for me on 6May [2021] rather than the Conservative candidate.

Andrew Boff: Perhaps, MrMayor, you could send me a letter, which I will circulate to other AssemblyMembers, asking how many penthouses you have built. Thank you very much for that. I do not require an answer. We will get that in the letter. Thank you very much, Chair.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, let me answer. Let me respond. No, Chair, he has asked a question. Let me respond to that. Chair, I am not going to respond to him in writing because this is Mayor’s Question Time. If he wants to ask me a question for me to respond to now, I will respond to it. He may not like the answer, but it is my prerogative to answer the question. Chair, let me ask him. Would you like me to answer your question now?

Andrew Boff: No, I want a letter.

Sadiq Khan: There we go. Did you see?

Andrew Boff: I want a letter. I want you on the record.

Navin Shah: All right. Let us stop here. The Mayor has refused to give you a letter. He was happy to answer your question. Let us move on. We have a supplementary from AssemblyMember DrMoore.

Traffic issues at Kew Green

Tony Arbour: Are local residents wrong to strongly object to Richmond Council's decision to move the Kew Gardens coach drop-off from the Victoria Gate to Kew Green?

Sadiq Khan: Local residents have every right to make their views known to Richmond Council about this and other decisions. It is for the council to consider all the feedback they receive, both positive and negative, as part of its decision-making process. The proposals stem from a larger wish from the council scheme to review parking across the north Kew area following the redevelopment of Brentford Football Club stadium, which has resulted in increased parking pressure in the area. Richmond Council also temporarily suspended parking along Kew Road in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to extend the operating times of the cycle lane, which was previously only operational from 8am to 10am with parked cars allowed in the cycle lane outside these hours. The current layout is temporary, after which the Council would need to undertake a permanent traffic management order if the measures were to become permanent.
The Council has emphasised that the Elizabeth Gate has always been listed on the Kew Gardens website as its preferred drop-off point for coaches so has taken steps to ensure this can be accessed in a safe and convenient manner. TfL has been working with Richmond on these proposals, including where they overlap with the TfL road network and how the cycle lanes will link with Cycleway 9 at Kew Bridge.

Tony Arbour: Thank you, MrMayor. Have you visited Kew Gardens?

Sadiq Khan: Quite often. You mean recently?

Tony Arbour: Recently.

Sadiq Khan: Not in the last few weeks, no. The last time was probably a few months ago when I visited as part of a planning application.

Tony Arbour: Can I urge you to come again and visit Kew, especially in lilac time, not very far from Clapham? When you go, you will notice that the traffic conditions are not as you described when I asked you about this in September [2020]. In September, you said that Kew Road was a busy cycle corridor and that Kew Green was a quiet backwater and you will see that neither of those things are true. Currently, when we do not have the COVID situation, though nevertheless the Gardens are open, visitors who do not come by train come largely by coach and are dropped off in Kew Road, which only has buildings on one side. It is a very substantial road and the coaches park there.
The current proposal, which I would suggest to you really is linked to Richmond Council’s obsession with cycling - I mean, it is a feature, is it not, of Liberal Democrats that they are as keen on cycling as you are and TfL is - and that they are suggesting that the buses/the coaches now park at Kew Green at the Elizabeth Gate. This is a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage site. If those coaches can only drop off people at Kew Green, they are going to create enormous pressure on the traffic and the residential area, which is Kew Green, and is going to have an appalling effect on that.
Can I wrap up other things in this? You have mentioned Brentford Football Club and the pressure that, again when they are playing properly, that will have on Kew Road and Kew Bridge. Can I say that the terrible delays, which are still being caused by the closure of Hammersmith Bridge, are only going to exacerbate this? Far from being a ‘quiet backwater’, Kew Green is going to become a very substantial traffic hub. The coaches, which are to be diverted around Kew Green, are going to have to come out onto the south circular road, they are going to have to go onto Kew Bridge, and this is going to cause very substantial disruption.
Can I ask you, please, to reconsider your advice to Richmond Council on this one and say to them that the coaches should continue to park in Kew Road? I fear for your reputation on this one, MrMayor. It is an unusual thing for me to say. Currently, Richmond Council is getting all the blame for this, quite rightly. But I fear that if you give this one the nod, you will get the blame, the GLA will get the blame and, coincidently, I fear that I may get the blame as well. Can I ask you, please, to look into this one?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, the Member is assiduously raising legitimate concerns from local residents. I always take on board what he says and he is hugely experienced in these issues. He is right to remind me and those watching as to the Richmond Council scheme, but there are concerns. Why do I not ask my Walking and Cycling Commissioner to speak to the Council, Kew Gardens and AssemblyMemberArbour - Will Norman does speak to residents as well - to see if there is a way to navigate the various interests here so we can get to a resolution that satisfies as many people as possible?

Tony Arbour: Thank you very much. ‘Navigate’ is a very good term for this. Again, can I repeat to you and to all Members? Do come down to Kew in lilac time. Thank you, Chair.

Electric Buses

Tony Devenish: With the news that Coventry and Oxford are set to become the first UK all-electric bus cities, how long will it take London to join them?

Sadiq Khan: London now has the biggest zero-emission bus fleet in the UK and one of the largest in Europe. I want London’s bus fleet to become entirely zero-emission as quickly as possible. The scale of that challenge is many times larger in London than Coventry or Oxford, each operating hundreds of buses compared to our now 9,000. TfL has already made great strides since I became Mayor in bringing over 400 zero-emission buses into service. This is expected to rise to 700 by the end of this year and 2,000 by 2025, dependent upon TfL reaching an adequate financial settlement with the Government.
Since I became Mayor, we have made huge progress and now all buses in TfL’s 9,000-strong fleet meet or exceed stringent EuroVI emission standards. This important milestone has been achieved in less than four years. Air quality and carbon emissions will be further improved by moving towards a zero-emission bus network. That is why the financial sustainability plan that TfL has submitted to Government is clear about the scale of investment needed to deliver this as soon as possible. This is critical to meeting my zero-carbon target by 2030.
Decarbonising the transport network and cleaning up London’s air will also support green jobs in the bus industry across the UK. Around £85million has been invested in retrofitting older diesel buses to meet or exceed the EuroVI emissions standard since 2017. Each retrofitted bus emits up to 95% less nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 80% less particulate matter than before, leading to significant air quality improvements across London. Twelve low-emission bus zones were delivered between 2017 and 2019 to tackle the worst air quality hotspots outside central London. This service has helped transform air quality.
Both Coventry and Oxford will receive funding from the Government to replace its entire fleet of buses with all-electric versions, to install new infrastructure such as charging systems, and pay for electric grid updates. TfL has outlined to the Government that with steady financial support it could make all buses in London zero-emission by 2030.

Tony Devenish: Good morning, MrMayor. MrMayor, as you have said, the city of Coventry has overtaken our global city of London by 12 years in its ambition to have an electric bus fleet. As the son of a bus driver, are you not embarrassed by the poverty of your green ambition?

Sadiq Khan: Who writes this stuff? Coventry is receiving 100% funding from the Government. The Government has written a £50million cheque to Coventry, a separate £50million cheque to Oxford, and has not given us any of the support we need. We have more electric buses in London than any city in Europe. It began after I became Mayor. We are not wasting money on vanity Routemasters. £326million on 800 new Routemasters. We retrofitted all of our 9,000 buses and have an ambition to go fully electric as soon as possible. If he were more successful in persuading his mates in the Government to give us more support rather than being anti-London, we could get there sooner rather than later.

Tony Devenish: You could be a collegiate mayor, MrMayor, and maybe we could work together to achieve this. This is something you have made little progress on. You were Mayor for three and a half years before COVID. You have done, as usual, not a lot. I will leave it there because of the time.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am really happy for the Member to let me know how many electric buses I inherited. How many hydrogen-powered buses did I inherit?

Tony Devenish: It is Mayor’s Question Time, MrMayor. Your record is appalling and you can try to hide behind it. Thank you, Chair.

Sadiq Khan: We have the most electric buses of any city in the country and in Europe. We have had a massive run over the last four and a half years. If we had a less anti-London Government ‑‑

Tony Devenish: He is very concerned about his appalling record, Chair, because he cannot stop. Get on with the job, MrMayor. That would be wonderful. Have a great day.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, I heard the shouting but I did not hear a question, Chair.

Navin Shah: There was not one.

Police Covid Impact

Steve O'Connell: It has recently been reported that due to Covid, there were 1300 Met Police Officers either ill or self-isolating. What is the current situation and what impact has this had on policing London?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for raising this important issue at this important time. I firstly want to take this opportunity to thank our police officers, staff and volunteers, who have worked tirelessly throughout this pandemic to keep us all safe. It is important we all continue to recognise and support the dedication of our emergency services. The nature of policing, like all frontline services, is that officers inevitably come into contact with the virus and are at risk of infection.
COVID has directly impacted officers and staff and there is a pressure on the MPS workforce, both with people sick with the virus and of people needing to self-isolate if they come into contact with it. Latest figures show 12.9% of officers and staff were either sick or self-isolating. That is around 5,200 people, around 1,700 of whom are absent for reasons related to COVID. Many of those self-isolating are able to work from home. To manage the absences and ensure that the MPS continues to deliver frontline policing, it has had to flex resources across London.
That is why I support the Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis] in her calls and I have written to the Secretary of State for Health and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, asking for the prioritisation of those delivering key public services like the police. I hope this will include these key workers, who are more vulnerable to infection due to the nature of their public-facing work and because they cannot work as effectively from home.

Steve O’Connell: Thank you very much, MrMayor, for your reply. Whilst on, I thank you for your rebuffing earlier about the debate about vaccines and the untruths around that. It is actually important that people take up the vaccine.
Now turning to your reply, we had the Deputy Commissioner last week tell us that there are up to 1,700 frontline officers and others self-isolating. There is an issue here and a real challenge for the MPS leaders to flex their resources and I hope that you will support them. I agree very much with your comments around priority for police officers and know the Chair [of the Police and Crime Committee], Unmesh [Desai AM] and myself are planning also to reinforce that by writing on behalf of the Police and Crime Committee. Ultimately, officers like others, are at the highest risk exposure and, indeed, we have shameful examples of bad people weaponising their own infections to attack officers, absolutely disgraceful behaviour by a very small minority of people. We need to protect those that protect us and I very much agree with you that we should be treating police officers as a priority.
I will really finish there and encourage you to continue that support for our frontline officers, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: Can I say, Chair, that those words spoken by the Member will have been heard by police officers, staff and their families? I really welcome what he said, the way he said it. Can I just echo what he said and can I just join him in thanking those police officers and staff? It is unacceptable to ever assault a frontline worker, but it really is the worst when you weaponise this virus. He will have heard the Deputy Commissioner telling stories about officers being spat at by people claiming to have this virus. Also, he will be aware that protest, for very good reasons, is not allowed during this lockdown. We are seeing police officers having to police protests and having to explain to them they are breaking the law. Can I thank him for the words he said, which I completely echo and support?

Steve O’Connell: Thank you, MrMayor.
[The Deputy Chairman assumed the Chair from 12.13pm to 12.18pm for the duration of question 2021/0376.]

Policing implications of leaving the EU

Unmesh Desai: What impact has there been on the Met’s operations following the end of the Brexit transition period and the loss of EU policing tools which were previously in place?

Sadiq Khan: Thank you to the Member for this really important question. There is no doubt that the newly agreed Brexit deal does not come close to the benefits we enjoyed as members of the EU. Whichever way you slice it, the deal falls short of what is best for London.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) will continue to work with European counterparts in security and policing under the new agreement, but they no longer have the same EU tools and powers as before.
National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Chair MartinHewitt said:
“The fallback systems will be slower, provide less visibility of information and intelligence, and make joined-up working with European partners more cumbersome.”
The UK has forfeited the use of the European Arrest Warrant, the Schengen Information System, and its membership of Europol and Eurojust, making it harder to keep track of terrorists, criminals, and serious organised criminal networks.
Instead, the UK has become a third-party partner with Europol and Eurojust, similar to the relationship with the United States. The police are now using alternative inferior arrangements. But these are not like-for-like replacements of the EU tools and powers. In most cases they are slower and less efficient and they represent a drop-off in capability for tackling cross-border criminality.
The loss of the Schengen Information System will have a major operational impact according to the NPCC. This database was aligned to European systems and, while the police are prepared to use Interpol in its place, this requires a more manual and slower process, with Forces circulating information on far-fewer persons and objects of interest.
That being said, I believe the historic bonds between London and the European agencies will endure. The MPS has good relations and will continue to work together with our European friends on the many challenges we face, including the fight against terrorism.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, MrMayor, for that answer. MrMayor, the HomeSecretary, in an article in the Sunday Telegraph, has stated that she feels the UK will be safer following exit from the EU as UK police will be able to benefit from good stronger powers as a result of the deal.
Do you agree with these comments, especially in light of what you have said? What are the stronger powers? Have you or the MPS been given an indication of what impact these so-called stronger powers will have for policing in London?

Sadiq Khan: No, it is nonsense. It is just lies. There are no stronger powers. We discovered this week that we have left the EU but the Home Secretary still does not have control of her borders. They cannot even sort out the borders in relation to the virus, let alone additional powers to fight terrorism and organised crime. We had a former Commissioner [of Police of the Metropolis],
[Sir] IanBlair [QPM], talking on the radio recently, explaining his concern about, for example, terrorists he was able to bring back speedily in 2005 cannot now be brought back because we have left the EU and our access to the European Arrest Warrant.

Unmesh Desai: MrMayor, I am very conscious about time, but if I could ask you this one and final question. The Home Office has managed to accidentally delete around 400,000 fingerprints, DNA and arrest reports, from the Police National Computer. What has also been last reported is the Home Office, as a result of the Brexit deal, has been required to delete 40,000 alerts relating to European criminals. What impact could the loss of these records have on London?

Sadiq Khan: A huge impact because it means that police officers do not have up-to-date information on potentially dangerous people. We have to be honest about what Brexit means. Some people try to sugar-coat how bad it is. This is a live real example of the consequences of us leaving the EU.

Unmesh Desai: Thank you, MrMayor.

Ambitious target, or empty rhetoric?

Leonie Cooper: Do you agree with the Green Alliance that the Government’s ambitious 2030 emissions target will not be met unless the Government devotes resources to ensuring it is met?

Sadiq Khan: Firstly, Chair, I am sure the Member - like me and every single Member of the Assembly - will be welcoming yesterday’s inauguration, which is relevant directly to the issue raised by Léonie Cooper [AM] today. It is the first time for ages actually, Chair, that David Kurten [AM] and
Peter Whittle [AM] have not mentioned [former President of the United States] Donald Trump. I wonder why, but there you go.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of a more ambitious target. However, without the necessary policy framework and commitment of funding, this is, indeed, just empty rhetoric. The Government urgently needs to back up its claim with action if we are going to tackle the climate emergency. The reason why I refer to the inauguration, Chair, as you will know, one of the executive orders signed by President Biden was recommitting [the United States of] America to the Paris Climate Agreement, which is really good news and bodes well for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) later on this year.
The Committee said that the UK needs to spend £50billion each year to achieve net zero. This is less than 1% of GDP and would be investment that pays back in terms of jobs, growth and reduced inequalities, but the Government is not doing this. The Government has recently announced its ten-point plan, only committed to spending £12billion this Parliament when London alone requires £61billion in total to get to net zero. France and Germany have committed to roughly £30billion and £40billion respectively to their Green Recovery packages. Our Government urgently needs to show that level of ambition. With the limited powers at my disposal, I can only deliver around half the actions needed to address the climate change and continue to call for powers and funding to be devolved to London, ensuring we get our fair share of funds.

Léonie Cooper: MrMayor, I am glad you noticed the executive order to re-enter the Paris Agreement being signed. I must say it is slightly off-topic for the rest of my question, except of course it is not in the sense that the context of all of this is the world needing to take effective action to tackle the climate emergency. The National Audit Office (NAO) stressed in its Achieving Net Zero report that:
“Arm’s-length bodies, regulators and local authorities all have critical roles in the achievement of net zero.”
It is very much a joint activity that we need to undertake. I just wondered if you could quickly outline for us what discussions the Government has had with you regarding achievement of the target of carbon neutral by 2030, our local London target. We made a declaration of a climate emergency in the Assembly, one of the first actually nationally. But also now it has to be our national target, does it not?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. We have had very little discussion with the Government, not for want of trying from us. The last substantive engagement was when [The Rt Hon] Michael Gove [MP] had that job in Cabinet and we had really good engagements with him when he had the job, very little since then. When you look at some of the national pots of money that are available around this area, we get very little of that, whether it is building retrofit or vehicle excise duty. I have put forward a submission to the Government in relation to both the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and also the Budget in relation to the Clean Air Fund in relation to electrification of our buses, in relation to local decarbonisation projects, in relation to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. If we get support from the Government, we can do much, much more. The reality is we are not going to get to zero carbon by 2030 without Government support in relation to resources and powers. The reality is I think Joe Biden being elected President and him re-signing the Paris Climate Change agreement may kick-start this Government responding more urgently to this really pressing issue.

Léonie Cooper: AssemblyMemberDevenish was asking about Coventry and Oxford and of course they are getting that support from Government that we do not get. We are net contributors, only one-way street, into the funding into Highways England, which is a bit disappointing. Overall, how much funding would you say that London needs in order to achieve net zero by 2030 and how much of that at all is being offered by the Government? It is very little, is it not?

Sadiq Khan: It is just worth reminding ourselves that actually this is a loss leader. Putting money in now not only saves our planet and further addresses the issue of climate emergency and climate change, but it leads to more jobs being created, more people paying taxes, saving money, saving bills and so forth.
I will give you an example in relation to buses. If we were to get the support we need for electrifying our buses, it means jobs across the country, 3,000 jobs across the country from Falkirk to Leeds to Scarborough to Ballymena. In relation to making London net zero by 2030, we have calculated we need roughly £60billion, which might seem like a lot of money because it is a lot of money, but the reality is we get that back and some over the course of that coming period. It is a good example of investing to get money back in the medium to long term.

Léonie Cooper: Absolutely. A lot of local authorities lashed out on putting in LED bulbs into streetlamps. But of course the payback is that you spend the money upfront on the capital costs but then later on you spend so much less on the revenue costs, and I think that is a lesson for all of us. Actually, buying an electric vehicle costs more in the first place, but of course when you are running it, the running costs are so much less than putting the fossil fuel, the petrol, into it later.
You have been doing an awful lot in London to improve the quality of London’s air from introducing the tier charge, the central London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), scrappage schemes to assist people. How helpful would it be to have a Clean Air Act for the whole of the country and to have some sort of scrappage scheme nationally so that we can really start to help people move forward if they still want to have a private vehicle rather than going down the route of using public transport or using active travel or joining a car club? How much would that help Londoners and the rest of the country to move forward more quickly towards these really important goals?

Sadiq Khan: I think your question and its contents - and hopefully my answer - is a good illustration of the difference that politicians can make and the reason why politics matters. Every step over the last four and a half years, you and I have been opposed by the Conservative group in relation to this issue yet our policies have led to a 94% reduction in the number of Londoners living in areas exceeding the legal limits of nitrogen dioxide, opposed every step of the way by the Conservative member standing to be the Mayor on 6May2021 and seeing a spot into reminding me of the difference that politics can make with the right sort of politician in the position of power of influence.
Secondly, that should not be the limit of our ambition. With a new Clean Air Act, I think we can make real progress going forward because our powers are limited in relation to what we have got control over but also the resources are limited. So if we had more powers to do roadside, to do construction, to do buildings, to do the river and we had the resources, we could address 100% of the issues that lead to poor quality air rather than a maximum of 50%. That is why we are lobbying the Government for a new Clean Air Act with powers and resources but also an independent watchdog. We have left the EU now and so question “Who is the watchdog that makes sure the Government, councils and I are held to account?”

Léonie Cooper: And a watchdog with some teeth. Finally, MrMayor, you just mentioned the differences between the parties on this, which is a great regret to myself and other Members of the Labour Group on the Assembly. We really do need to expand the ULEZ from the central London ULEZ in October2021 out to the north and south circulars, do we not? It would be a disaster for London’s air if that did not happen, would it not?

Sadiq Khan: Let me just remind you. The Conservative Government wants us to extend the Congestion Charge up to the north and the south circular. I say “No” to that, but I say yes to extending the ULEZ up to the north and south circular. So you vote Conservative, you pay more for driving your car; you vote Labour, you get good quality air.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you, MrMayor.

Rickets in Children

Jennette Arnold: What work are you doing to combat rickets in children in London?

Sadiq Khan: Every Londoner should have a healthy start in life. It is a source of huge concern that children in London in 2021 are suffering from diseases like rickets, which are entirely preventable and come from not receiving the vitamins you need through diet and sunlight. While the number of people suffering from rickets in the UK is low, over recent years there has been an increase in cases. During autumn and winter, all Londoners are at risk of vitamin D deficiency due to a lack of natural sunlight and those with darker skin are at greater risk. Current lockdown restrictions and school closures may mean that many children are not able to spend as much time outside, further exacerbating this issue.
Health professionals recommend that everyone in the UK should be taking a vitamin D supplement. Families who qualify for Healthy Start vouchers can access these supplements for free. My Healthy Schools London and Healthy Years London programmes champion healthy diets and support settings to embed healthy eating and drinking. This support is more important than ever, with schools and other settings under extreme pressure to adapt to the changing situation. Resources and support are still provided for staff, who are teaching from home. The importance of accessing a healthy diet is also recognised through a London Recovery programme. The Healthy Food, Healthy Weight mission focuses on Londoners’ access to healthy, sustainable and culturally appropriate food, and the London Food Board advises me on the food issues and advocates for actions across the capital.

Jennette Arnold: Thank you, MrMayor, for that full and comprehensive answer and you are right. The NHS has recently changed to advising those who receive a letter from itself or the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), confirming their high risk from coronavirus and over the age of 18, to take vitamin D supplements and this is a positive step. However, there have been no comments from the Government on advice for children, especially those in homes relying on foodbanks and/or free meals and children of black and minority ethnic heritage who, as you highlighted, are more likely to be at a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency.
Can I urge you to keep the nutritional needs of these vulnerable children and young people on the list of the issues for your meetings with the London Regional Director of Public Health as one way forward would be for the Government to introduce an outstanding 2012 recommendation from the then Chief Medical Officer of Health, who recommended a Healthy Start vitamin programme? This, as we know, would then enable it to be a matter of course rather than something that is just highlighted during a pandemic.

Sadiq Khan: Well, we check, and I thank the Member for raising again an issue that affects the most vulnerable in our city. I have been reading with keen interest recently the excellent work from [The Rt Hon] David Davis MP and [Dr] Rupa Huq MP on a cross-party basis to highlight this issue. She will be aware from her rich experience about how in previous years certain foods were fortified with vitamin D to make sure we got sufficient vitamin D. I am worried. I am speaking to London leaders today from the NHS and I will make sure I mention this to them today in relation to steps that can be taken to make sure we address this issue. It is really important we do and we know for the foreseeable future our children may not be receiving the sunlight they should receive because they have been asked to stay home. That is even more reason to make sure we find other ways for them to receive their vitamin D.

Jennette Arnold: Absolutely, MrMayor. Government is no stranger to national programmes. One of the first national programmes I worked on as a health visitor was the Asian mother and baby campaign. That was evidence-based and there is enough evidence out there. This is known, and so just a vitamin programme that is universal would be so helpful.
At the end of my time, MrMayor, can I move away from you and say to my colleague,
AssemblyMember Tony Arbour, that if he will come to Clissold Park to see the blossoming trees in spring, I will gladly come to Kew once I am through my vaccine regime?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am sure both Members are incredibly experienced and neither of them, for those watching, are breaking any rules. They are talking about promises after the lockdown is lifted and they are teasing each other, as they always do.

Navin Shah: Or one can say that we are collectively promoting great aspects of London, the areas of character, history, heritage and all of that.

Sadiq Khan: Sorry, Chair. Are you talking about Jennette and Tony or their respective parks and blossom trees?

Navin Shah: I did mention heritage. I do not know. It could be‑‑

Jennette Arnold: Excuse me. We are national treasures, if you do not mind.

Surface water flooding

Caroline Russell: What are you doing to reduce the risk of surface water flooding in London?

Sadiq Khan: In London 235,000 properties are at significant risk of surface water flooding. Through the London Environment Strategy and our Green New Deal recovery mission, we are working to reduce the risk of surface water flooding to make the capital more climate-resilient and protect vulnerable Londoners. This includes tackling urban water management, improving green spaces, adapting the built environment and raising awareness through events like London Food Awareness Week. Urban areas like London receive less Government funding to tackle flooding. By working with six pilot boroughs to quantify the benefits of small schemes, our officers have helped to secure £1million of new funding for sustainable drainage schemes, paving the way for the approach to be rolled out across London. My Greener City and Grow Back Greener funds have contributed over £13million since 2016 to green infrastructure projects to help London adapt to climate change, of which £1.8million supports over 40 projects around surface water floor risk. Our officers have produced guidance now to prepare for climate change and flooding for schools in early year settings, social housing, hospitals, commercial and retail buildings, parks and green spaces, as well as providing training to over 200 highway officers on the benefits of sustainable drainage systems. My new London Plan is reducing surface water flood risk with every new development, and of the flow of applications

Navin Shah: Sorry. The Labour Group is out of time.

Caroline Russell: This is Green time.

Navin Shah: I am sorry. I am sorry. I was distracted‑‑

Caroline Russell: MrMayor, continue and finish, but I want my time back.

Navin Shah: You will have your time back, no problem at all. Sorry I was distracted, working from home. One of these problems you have. My apology. Carry on, MrMayor.

Sadiq Khan: Let me just end, Caroline, by just saying integrated water management plans in our housing growth areas are all in our sustainable strategy for reducing water demand and managing surface water flood risk.

Caroline Russell: Thank you, MrMayor. I am particularly concerned about the overwhelming of drainage systems by rain and that is especially the run-off from roads. We need a greater sense of urgency on the issue of climate adaptation. I had a report out in summer 2019, London’s Warming, which highlighted the risks to London Tube stations, with 23 stations at significant risk of flooding from extreme rainfall.
My question is: sustainable drainage systems or SUDs are a solution to this problem. In your Transport Strategy, you have a target to drain 50,000 square metres of surface on and around roads each year into SUDs, rather than into conventional drains and sewers. Now you have only reported London’s progress over one year, which was 2019/20, and that reported 28,000 square metres against a 50,000 target and that was all from London boroughs and that was just about half your target. So is that 28,000 square metres all that you have achieved?

Sadiq Khan: No, there is a lot more we have achieved and it is worth reminding ourselves that actually local authorities are responsible for the local flood. They are considered the lead local planning authority. They have responsibility over their roads whereas we have responsibility over our roads, the TfL roads, as well. We are working closely with the highways authorities in relation to addressing this issue, working also with Thames Water. As an example of the difference we are making, I can give you a concrete example of a specific scheme. Around Old Street, we are using pluvial paving, rain gardens and a green roof and so you will see more progress, Caroline, going forward in relation to our policies being brought into effect because you are right. This issue is not going away and the more urbanisation we get, if we are not careful - we have seen this over the last few days and weeks - with rainwater we could have increased amounts of water from the surface running off to our stretched sewers.

Caroline Russell: MrMayor, if your target - and you are not meeting it - good to hear about Old Street and I am really looking forward to going to have a look at it but another location, in Islington, is the new pedestrianised area at Highbury Corner where there is a large water tank, but this does not seem to be proper, sustainable drainage. It is a big tank under the pavement, but judging by the consistent puddles on the surface, it seems to fill rather faster than the nearby trees want to drink from it. I am hearing that SUDs get value engineered out from schemes during the design and construction process within TfL. Do you think a simple commitment from you that every major TfL scheme should have SUDs would remove that risk and help you to meet your target?

Sadiq Khan: We have got, for the first time ever in the London Plan when it is finally approved, a prioritisation in relation to green over grey drainage measures. But for the first time ever, we have a sustainable drainage policy, which was not there before, and it sets out a quite clear hierarchy for developers to follow with the greenest, most sustainable nature-based - like you said, water going to trees - approaches to manage surface water at the top of the hierarchy. It is really important that local councils exert the pressure on developers to follow our guidance. You will be aware only the bigger schemes come to us or the schemes on our roads, but you are right. The councils must make sure that developers are following the policies we have set out.

Caroline Russell: MrMayor, it is absolutely about councils and developers, but it is also about you and with TfL you have got the belief, you have got the control, and I think you can show a leadership role here and particularly if there is good training for TfL officers of the importance that SUDs hold for our city. I am now out of time, so thank you.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for raising this important issue.

Navin Shah: MrMayor, thank you very much for your answers and‑‑

Len Duvall: Chair, the Labour Group has one minute and 42 seconds. Can we use that?

Navin Shah: Absolutely. Please go ahead.

Rough sleeping in the second wave – during winter

Murad Qureshi: What action is being taken to support Londoners who are sleeping rough during this second wave of COVID-19, which has hit during the winter?

Sadiq Khan: Can I thank the Member for this really important issue at this time of year?
In partnership with boroughs, charities and the NHS, I will continue to do all I can to keep rough sleepers safe during the pandemic. It is essential that we are able to sustain our achievements so far. Since March [2020], accommodating well over 6,000 people, including almost 2,200 in GLA-procured hotels, avoiding an estimated 7,000 infections and 90 deaths as well as 390 hospital and 115 ICU admissions. The extent of the second wave, the further lockdown, the new variant and the onset of winter have made our task more challenging and more important. We are doing all that we can.
Across London, over 3,200 rough sleepers are currently being safely accommodated. Around 690 of these are in six GLA-procured hotels, two of which we opened this winter. We have also reopened our COVID isolation beds and, in addition, are taking referrals for people being discharged from hospitals, freeing up much-needed NHS beds. With GLA support, the faith and community sector has done amazing work to provide an alternative to the usual 800spaces in communal winter night shelters, securing COVID-safe accommodation for over 270rough sleepers. My team has also worked with the boroughs to make sure there is COVID-safe provision during severe weather, including up to 80beds in a new GLA-procured facility.
Since last summer, London boroughs and I have been repeatedly urging the Government to provide the additional funding needed to safely accommodate everyone on the street over the winter, estimated at £24million in London. The response from the Government has been both piecemeal and inadequate, £25million nationally announced in October [2020] and a further £10million nationally announced this month. The Government has continued to resist our calls to fund a comprehensive second everyone-in, perhaps because, unlike during the first wave, DameLouiseCasey [CB] is no longer there to spearhead a compassionate and life-saving approach. With the second wave even worse than the first, I can see no justification for this. Without it, I very much fear that much of the good work achieved so far will be undone and that London’s rough sleepers will face the bleakest of winters.

Murad Qureshi: Thank you for that comprehensive update. This time of year, as you have said, is a critical time of year and you have had to twice get things into operation because of how cold it is. One of the things you did not quite give us information on is how much of the extra £10million that the Government has suggested is London getting at all.

Sadiq Khan: We are getting a portion of that. I do not have the exact figure here but I can write to you in relation to that. The £35million is national, £10million plus £25million. Just for London, we need £24million. You will be aware that in previous schemes we got a fraction of the amount we need.

Murad Qureshi: I will follow up after the meeting. How many people do you think have been left sleeping rough due to the Government not stepping up to give London the funding it needs?

Sadiq Khan: We worry there are hundreds of people out in London that should not be there. One of the downsides of the many upsides of there being fewer people on the streets because of the lockdown is they cannot let StreetLink know who is rough sleeping. What normally happens, as you are aware, is the StreetLink app is used to let the charities know where people are sleeping rough so we can send out outreach workers to help them. Because people are not out and about, they are not letting us know using StreetLink. But there are still many, many hundreds out and about sleeping rough in London. Outreach workers are going out, notwithstanding the pandemic. The issue is there are fewer places because what we do not want is people to be in a place that cannot be secure because the virus spreads quickly. That is why we need to get them off the streets as soon as possible and keep them once they are in.

Murad Qureshi: There is no doubt, along the edge of the road where I jog, there are increasing levels of rough sleepers. It is quite clear the circumstances, as you have explained.
Can I just now move to private renters in this question? The National Residential Landlords Association said Ministers were doing more harm than good by repeatedly banning repossessions as it simply stacks up more tenant debt on top of their existing arrears. You have called on the Government to put in place a support package that would include providing grants to support renters to clear their rent arrears and remain in their homes. Do you expect the Government to take such measures in the future?

Sadiq Khan: “No renter who has lost income due to Coronavirus will be forced out of their home, nor will any landlord face unmanageable debts.” They are not my words but the words of the Housing Secretary in March [2020]. An example of a promise made and a promise broken. I am afraid the bad news is we are seeing tenants still leaving their homes because of arrears. Although there has been a winter truce on bailiff actions, we are still seeing court orders made. The Government should be supporting landlords who need the monies but also supporting tenants as well. It is really important the Government understands that they are creating problems for both tenants and landlords.

Murad Qureshi: Thank you for that response. I hope private renters and rough sleepers realise on whose side you are on, on these matters. Thank you very much.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you very much.

Action on the cladding and fire safety scandal

Caroline Pidgeon: What steps are you taking to support leaseholders and residents impacted by the cladding and fire safety scandal in London?

Sadiq Khan: Can I thank the Member for raising this really important issue? I have always supported leaseholders and residents impacted by the building safety scandal in London and I remain deeply concerned about the impact this may be having on their safety, their personal finances and their mental health and wellbeing.
I have consistently lobbied the Government on this point. In December [2020] I proposed that it introduce a ground-breaking levy on major private property developers, which could raise £3billion to raise the rampant inequality in building safety standards and fund vital cladding replacement work on properties across London. This proposal was supported by many cladding groups and by my Deputy Mayor [for Housing and Residential Development], who also raised this with the Minister [for Housing] directly.
In September [2020] I also wrote to the Government outlining five urgent steps to unlock the EWS1 [External Wall Fire Review form] crisis for the many thousands of leaseholders trapped in unsellable and potentially unsafe homes. I have not received a reply and I have chased this up.
In response to pre-legislative scrutiny on the Building Safety Bill, I called for protections for leaseholders from the costs of historic defects and I have been pushing for funding to cover the costs of interim safety measures such as waking watches.
As well as lobbying the Government, where I have powers to act, I have ensured we are doing everything we can. My new London Plan takes ground-breaking steps to introduce fire safety into the planning system, ensuring that safety is considered from the very beginning. New homes on public land commissioned by my Development Panel are now required to meet higher standards than those set out in building regulations. This includes the requirement for sprinklers in all purpose-built blocks of flats and a complete ban on combustible materials on all buildings regardless of height. The same requirements have also been introduced for social landlords wishing to bid for funding from my new Affordable Homes Programme.
I am afraid the Government continues to fail to realise the scale of the building safety crisis. Its response has been slow, piecemeal and simply not good enough. I am astounded that over three and a half years since the awful fire at Grenfell [Tower] there is still no sign of a long-term and fair solution to the building safety crisis. Leaseholders and residents deserve better.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much, MrMayor. We agree that Government measures to tackle the cladding and fire safety scandal have not only been perilously slow, but continue to be wholly insufficient, leaving thousands of Londoners living in dangerous buildings and many leaseholders facing financial ruin. While I fully support and encourage the building of new affordable homes in our city - and I have heard your answer today - we continue to see some housing providers that you fund recording strong profits yet failing to protect and safeguard tenants and leaseholders in their buildings against serious fire safety defects and dangerous cladding.
I am wondering; will you make it a condition of future GLA funding that housing providers must demonstrate to you that they have explored all possible funding options for remediation with the exception of charging leaseholders and show that they have implemented and funded all necessary interim safety measures for any affected buildings they own?

Sadiq Khan: Can I say, there is an issue in the way she has raised it. We speak on a regular basis with our partners to address the issues. Just so she is aware, one of the challenges they have is with finite resources they are really keen to build new affordable homes, but they have to deal with a backlog of remediation that you refer to, and rightly so. That is one of the reasons why we continue to lobby the Government in relation to both remediation but also new affordable homes. The challenge that the housing associations have is they have really acute pressures in relation to construction of new homes and additional obligations of new homes, at the same time as the backlog. That is why we continue to engage with them. We continue to want additional resources for them to remediate. As she said, what nobody wants is for leaseholders - leaseholders are not rich people - to have to pay for the remediation. By the way, they bought in good faith and nobody pointed out to them when they bought.

Caroline Pidgeon: Absolutely. But it could be something you could look at to assure yourself that those people you are giving money to have put in as many measures as they can.
I was also shocked to learn that under current legislation leaseholders have no legal right to see the fire risk assessment for the building in which they live. Will you consider trialling a public register of fire risk assessments in London so would-be renters and owners can check the fire-safety status of their potential new home? Such as the one that is used to register domestic energy performance certificates.

Sadiq Khan: The Building Safety bill is currently going through Parliament. We are speaking to legislators about tweaks and changes there. That is one of the ideas that we are discussing with them. I am really happy to report back once we have had those discussions. My concern is also the obligations on the firefighters to do the inspections. One of the problems in London is we have more than twice as many of these buildings than the rest of the country put together. But also it is quite difficult to work out who the owners are. It is difficult. So those who manage the building, those who own the building. But I am more than happy to look at this issue in relation to whether the Building Safety bill is the way to force owners to give this information. Because often there is no obligation on them to do so.

Caroline Pidgeon: Lovely, thank you very much. A lot of attention is rightly on high-rise buildings, but we know it is also a serious issue in low-rise blocks. Of course buildings under 18metres cannot access some of these funds, leaving thousands of leaseholders without any route to financial support. I am wondering what work you have been doing, MrMayor, to really push for those living in buildings under 18metres high.

Sadiq Khan: There was an awful fire in Sutton, which was below five storeys, and as AssemblyMemberBoff knows too well, the awful fire in Barkingside, which was not a tall building as well. We are working with, not just the building owners and the building managers, but the local councils in relation to what they can do. Speaking to many of these private owners about remediating some of this combustible cladding that is not aluminium composite material (ACM), these are not 18-metre buildings but lead the fire service to think that the built environment is not what it should be.
Just so she is aware, one of the challenges the fire service has is it cannot now say, “Stay put”, because it is not sure whether that building is safe enough for people to stay put. It is a real problem and we are taking steps to address this issue.

Caroline Pidgeon: Thank you very much.

Waking Watch Relief Fund

Andrew Dismore: The Government has announced a ‘Waking Watch Relief Fund’ that will pay for fire alarm systems to be installed in high rise residential buildings which have had to have waking watches as temporary fire safety measures because of fire safety defects which have still not been fixed three and a half years after the Grenfell Tower fire. This fund, however, will not actually pay for waking watches, only a fire alarm system. Many buildings need both. The LFB says there are (as at 18 December) 590 buildings with temporary fire safety measures and around 250 of these just have waking watches. Will you press the Government to actually fund waking watches as well as installation of fire alarm systems?

Sadiq Khan: Since the horrific tragedy at Grenfell Tower, time and again the Government’s response has been too little too late. I am deeply disappointed to see that the latest fund announced by the Government does not go far enough. Average costs of a waking watch in London - at an eye-watering £256 per household per month - are double the average for the rest of the country. Some households are paying as much as £500 per month on top of astronomical insurance bills. The Waking Watch Relief Fund is a belated step in the right direction but it is not enough to fund all affected buildings. It fails to reimburse leaseholders. Leaseholders have already paid out for interim waking watch costs. It does not consider those who continue to need a waking watch as well as a fire alarm. Yet again it failed to address buildings under 18metres.
It took the Government too long to ban combustible materials in new buildings and we are still waiting for its belated extension of the ban to buildings below 18metres to take effect. Time and again, the Government’s solution has come up short. I will continue, with the support of at least some Members of the Assembly, to press for change.

Andrew Dismore: Thank you for that reply. Would you agree that the Conservative Government’s announcement is a fake-news shabby conflict because it gives no help whatsoever for the cost of waking watches? Leaseholders have been left in limbo, facing demands of hundreds of pounds a month. In fact, the figure we have from the Fire, Resilience and Emergency Planning (FREP) [Committee] was that the average cost of a waking watch is £499 a month. The Local Government Association recently reported that they are now being pressurised by the Government to use trading standards departments to change the price of waking watches, but they have got no powers under which they can do so. It is the case, is it not, that the
Secretary of State is giving beleaguered retailers empty promises, unsupported by entirely insufficient funding, dodging his responsibility by expecting cash-strapped London boroughs to step in where they have no jurisdiction?

Sadiq Khan: Spot on. Spot on. This is a good example of the Government passing the buck without the resources. I am sure he has spoken to, as I have, heartbroken retailers, who simply cannot afford any more to pay for the waking watch, but they have to. They are taking on debt to pay for the waking watch and many of them are not just suffering financial hardship but mental anguish. I have spoken to people, Andrew - and I am sure you have - who are suicidal. Although the Government is offering to pay for a fire alarm to be installed three and a half years after Grenfell, some leaseholders require a waking watch and a fire alarm, but there is also no reimbursement for the money spent in the past and there is no way at all that council can step in. They are starved of resources as it is.

Andrew Dismore: Yes, and that is right. The London Fire Brigade (LFB) has met the challenge of London’s built environment by stepping up inspections of buildings at risk, including monitoring the performance of waking watches to ensure that Londoners are as safe as can be achieved in these difficult circumstances. What has been the impact on the LFB’s finances and operational capacity of these extra demands, especially at the time of COVID? Is it fair the Government has refused to address the funding pressures this additional workload has created?

Sadiq Khan: There are a number of things happening to the LFB. One: we do not receive the right level of funding from the Government that the Fire Service requires as a global city. Two: additional obligations are placed on the Fire Service because of Grenfell Tower and the built environment. Three: there are even further obligations on the fire service because of the inspection regime, which he talks about. The Commissioner has got this invidious job of transforming the fire service for the reasons I set out before at a time of limited resources. That is one of the reasons I do not apologise for having to increase that part of the council tax to pay for the fire service’s additional obligations upon them. It still does not go far enough and the fire service is also having to make savings because we have lost business rates and council tax because of the COVID pandemic as well.

Andrew Dismore: Yes, it is a difficult position for the LFB. Can we just go back to the levy you mentioned earlier on? You recently called for a levy on housebuilders to fund remediation works on homes affected by dangerous cladding. I should say also it is not just cladding, but there are other problems with the built environment as well, which Andy Roe, the Commissioner, has identified. What has been the Government’s response to this proposal so far, if any, and would you think that this slowly should be extended to fund waking watches prior to remediation being completed?

Sadiq Khan: One of the things I called for is this developer’s levy and we think it will raise about £3billion, not enough to pay for the remediation we are talking about as well. The good news is, as a result of the fantastic work of campaigning, the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail joined the campaign as well. So far, there is radio silence from the Government. By itself, this will not be enough to pay for the waking watches. It will help fund some of the remediation. We need the Government to step in in relation to the waking watches, but the sooner the remediation takes place, the sooner we can get rid of the need for the waking watch. That is why it is really important for the Government to understand that actually remediation is the way to not just address the issues of fire safety but to avoid additional costs later on as well.

Andrew Dismore: OK, thank you very much.